Jump to content

How Houston’s Missing Media Gene Hobbles Its Global City Ambitions


Recommended Posts

I somewhat agree with your comments, but I do think that Houston's image has improved significantly in the last 5-10 years and expect that it will continue to do so. I also think that you're underestimating the diversification of the economy that has happened since the 80's. The Ship Channel and Texas Medical Center are both major economic players and are rapidly growing in national importance. Houston is also rapidly growing its manufacturing sector (although a lot of that is tied to oil).

There are certain elements of the perception gap between SF and Houston that just can't be addressed. SF has natural beauty that Houston will never have. SF has an anchor industry (technology) that is way more appealing than energy is. SF is an international tourism hub in way that Houston will probably never be.

Just keep in mind, that we kick SF's a** when it comes to GDP. :)

And sf kills us in tourism and perception, which is what this thread is about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently had an old friend come into town who hadn't been here in a bit over 30 years.  

 

What initially blew her away was just how much bigger downtown has gotten.  Then, after a couple days, it was seeing what's going to be in place on Buffalo Bayou before long, trying to play "stump the host" on dining options and losing (she and her husband both have well stamped passports), seeing how walkable downtown has gotten around Market Square, and the museums.  They will be back, much sooner than in another 30 years.

 

As we gain convention capacity, and as we have a ton of people come in for things like the Super Bowl (I'm not holding my breath for a World Series, dangit), word will get around.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And sf kills us in tourism and perception, which is what this thread is about.

Perception is a very difficult thing to change, for sure: but seeing that Houston is currently successful, it boils down to two things: do you want a great city or a city that's perceived to be great?

Don't pick the latter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And sf kills us in tourism and perception, which is what this thread is about.

You apparently missed the part of my post where I discussed those things. SF will always kill Houston in tourism and nothing will change that. SF has a natural setting that is matched by only a couple of cities in the world.

Houston is handcuffed in perception by its close ties to the oil industry. A negative that is outweighed by the huge economic benefits that the region gains from that industry. The comparison is pointless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think that you're underestimating the diversification of the economy that has happened since the 80's.  The Ship Channel and Texas Medical Center are both major economic players and are rapidly growing in national importance.  Houston is also rapidly growing its manufacturing sector (although a lot of that is tied to oil).

 

There are certain elements of the perception gap between SF and Houston that just can't be addressed.  SF has natural beauty that Houston will never have.  SF has an anchor industry (technology) that is way more appealing than energy is.  SF is an international tourism hub in way that Houston will probably never be.

 

 

The Ship Channel (other than importing cars and furniture), is completely centered around the petro-chemical industry (Oil). Our biggest import/export is Chemicals.

 

But I do agree on the second half. Our landscape is not something unique or that people would flock to from around the globe (our summers are grueling). A lot of Europeans like it though. Weirdos.

 

I kind of like that we don't have any major world famous landmarks. Houston is such an odd city, and I'm increasingly looking forward to see how the city develops and what changes come into place. My father says Houston will become more like a city in the north east.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FIFY   ;-)

 

The Ship Channel (other than importing cars and furniture and coffe and other food and drink, and consumer goods and apparel, and fabrics and iron and steel products etc etc)  (and other than exporting food and drink, automotive, fabrics, consumer goods, apparel, and furniture, and cereals, and iron and steel products etc etc) , is completely centered around the petro-chemical industry (Oil). Our biggest import/export is Chemicals.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Primary imports/exports are chemicals related to - or - including petroleum products.  Yes of coure the Ship Channel has more than just those single materials coming in.  Port of Galveston is one of the biggest importers of Wind Turbines (different port but part of the region).  Houston is a pretty big coffee port, and is some how certified in some rather important way that I'm simply too lazy to look up right now.  I also think all of the imported Volkswagon autos come into Port of Houston?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A recent publication (a Christian-based news magazine, of all things) hailed Houston as the next global city because of its can-do attitude, partly because it's so diverse (both people-wise and space-wise). And it is. It can fulfill the role of blue-collar shipping town, big-city metropolis, cultural anchor (Houston food is getting more renowned), or quiet subdivisions. You can live near trees and lakes, or you can live a life of urban density. You can afford to live relatively close to downtown (at least were, that may be changing) without living in a slum.

Take it or leave it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is losing the gigantic "OWNER HAS BRAIN DAMAGE" car lot sign that much of an improvement?  I kinda miss it

 

I miss it greatly. If you are going to have a big, ugly sign blocking my view of the trees at least have it so it makes me smile. By the way, the OWNER HAS BRAIN DAMAGE sign was at the back of a car lot and it only blocked the view into someone's questionably landscaped back yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of People say Houston is ugly. In my opinion Houston was made ugly by its leaders, it doesn't have to be ugly just because their are no hills. I think the Woodlands is a beautiful area. It was beautifully developed and the forest is a big plus. If Houston has a whole had the right leadership from the beginning it would not have to be the endless development,  none walkable place that it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of People say Houston is ugly. In my opinion Houston was made ugly by its leaders, it doesn't have to be ugly just because their are no hills. I think the Woodlands is a beautiful area. It was beautifully developed and the forest is a big plus. If Houston has a whole had the right leadership from the beginning it would not have to be the endless development,  none walkable place that it is.

 

I don't agree.  The city proper - inner city (the old part of town) is not ugly.  The unmitigated sprawl from outside of the Loop is pretty narly (in places).

 

Houston's setting isn't ugly.  If flat coastal planes aren't to everyone's liking so be it, but there is a natural beauty to be found in the coastal areas.  The Katy Prairie is pretty too, as are the formerly old growth Piney Woods.  Houston is fortunate that it is at the crossroads of those three zones and not stuck in just one.

 

We just need to make sure that beautification of the major roads in and around town happens, and that more parks are constructed for the residents of this area.  If say the Big Thicket were to triple in size that would hardly be a bad thing.  Granted its not really close, but still, you can see my point.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of People say Houston is ugly. In my opinion Houston was made ugly by its leaders, it doesn't have to be ugly just because their are no hills. I think the Woodlands is a beautiful area. It was beautifully developed and the forest is a big plus. If Houston has a whole had the right leadership from the beginning it would not have to be the endless development,  none walkable place that it is.

No one "made" it ugly. Some of it was a bit undermaintained, but for every "ugly" place in Houston, I can counter with an "ugly" shot of San Francisco or New York City or Vancouver or Portland or Seattle.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of People say Houston is ugly. In my opinion Houston was made ugly by its leaders, it doesn't have to be ugly just because their are no hills. I think the Woodlands is a beautiful area. It was beautifully developed and the forest is a big plus. If Houston has a whole had the right leadership from the beginning it would not have to be the endless development, none walkable place that it is.

I wasn't trying to imply that Houston was ugly and I don't think it is. It was to point out that SF has a huge advantage based on its natural setting. The natural environment of Houston does not provide it any advantage related to tourism, it is similar to any number of other Midwestern cities. However, SF has one of the most unique locations/settings in the world. There is nothing that city planning could have done or can do to change that.

I don't agree with your comments about Houston's growth though. The objectives of Houston's leadership were to turn it into a global economic powerhouse, not to make it a "walkable place". That growth was in large part based on offering companies and immigrants low land prices, housing costs, and minimal government intervention. None of those things are conducive to the city that you envision.

If you read up on how Chicago developed, you'll see that Houston is following a very similar pattern. Both cities grew economically first and the "quality of life" came later.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys sound so ignorant sometimes.that " SF will always be more popular for tourists because of the hills" crap is just bull.

SF is more popular because of what they have done not because of no stupid hills.

Las Vegas is flat as a pancake and undoubtedly has the most boring setting of any major city in the US BUT IT IS TOP THREE FOR TOURISM and it is above SF.

Orlando is top three too, and it too is flat. Miami and NY are also flat. So is London, Paris and a host of European cities.

Houston with its waterways and trees look far better than Vegas so the look of the area has nothing to do with tourism. Its what you do with it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway why is houston so against change?

I like Houston how it is but adding things doesn't mean subtracting others.

Whats good for tourists are good for us. We use the parks too, beautification is good fit everybody. Improving transportation is good for both tourists and residents. Why can't we have a nice theme park, aquarium and gardens?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys sound so ignorant sometimes.that " SF will always be more popular for tourists because of the hills" crap is just bull.

SF is more popular because of what they have done not because of no stupid hills.

Las Vegas is flat as a pancake and undoubtedly has the most boring setting of any major city in the US BUT IT IS TOP THREE FOR TOURISM and it is above SF.

Orlando is top three too, and it too is flat. Miami and NY are also flat. So is London, Paris and a host of European cities.

Houston with its waterways and trees look far better than Vegas so the look of the area has nothing to do with tourism. Its what you do with it.

The surroundings do have to do with it. People look at Vancouver, see its majestic bay, mountains, and forests surrounding it, and are tricked into thinking its a beautiful city. If you take out those elements, it's a rather average-looking city.

Orlando is popular because Disney pioneered essentially a new industry by reinventing the theme park. Remove Disney World and the myriad of hotels and theme parks that followed and you'll get nothing.

Las Vegas has casinos. We (being Houston, that is) are not Las Vegas or Orlando.

Furthermore, your question, "Anyway why is houston so against change?" is nonsense because it contradicts everything else talked about and happening. People have complained on HAIF about the loss of buildings and the need for preservation, and have been saddened as their neighborhoods gentrify. The change the Heights and Montrose have gone through in the last 5-6 years alone, much less the last decade, is enormous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys sound so ignorant sometimes.that " SF will always be more popular for tourists because of the hills" crap is just bull.

SF is more popular because of what they have done not because of no stupid hills.

Las Vegas is flat as a pancake and undoubtedly has the most boring setting of any major city in the US BUT IT IS TOP THREE FOR TOURISM and it is above SF.

Orlando is top three too, and it too is flat. Miami and NY are also flat. So is London, Paris and a host of European cities.

Houston with its waterways and trees look far better than Vegas so the look of the area has nothing to do with tourism. Its what you do with it.

 

You've got to be joking.  My comment was that SF has a natural advantage in tourism because it has a very unique setting that most people find extremely beautiful.  Saying that's not a factor is about the same as denying that Miami draws a lot of its tourism from its natural surroundings (oh wait, you said that too).

 

I didn't say it was the only factor, I said it was an advantage.  By the way, I hear that Hawaii's tourist numbers are good because of "what they have done", not the stupid beaches and volcanos.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Woodlands is a beautiful area. It was beautifully developed and the forest is a big plus. If Houston has a whole had the right leadership from the beginning it would not have to be the endless development,  none walkable place that it is.

 

The Woodlands is a master planned community, drawn up by developers to artificially create a new city from scratch. That said, it's nice that you recognized that, as (and this has been stated) many say they want this idealistic, walkable urban paradise, but what they want is some of New Urbanism-style master planned community.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got to be joking. My comment was that SF has a natural advantage in tourism because it has a very unique setting that most people find extremely beautiful. Saying that's not a factor is about the same as denying that Miami draws a lot of its tourism from its natural surroundings (oh wait, you said that too).

I didn't say it was the only factor, I said it was an advantage. By the way, I hear that Hawaii's tourist numbers are good because of "what they have done", not the stupid beaches and volcanos.

I'm not saying that surroundings don't help. What in saying is that you guys are acting like without it tourism can't blossom and I have examples of how some of the top spots for tourism are not in picturesque spots.

What does your logical fallacy have to do with my point? Because you named two tourist spots that were in nice settings, my four examples of other destinations not in nice spots are suddenly invalidated.

Please. The top travel destinations in the world are set on flat as a pancake nondescript land.

These destinations were created. If memory serves me right Paris is tops in the world and that city was planned the hell out of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that surroundings don't help. What in saying is that you guys are acting like without it tourism can't blossom and I have examples of how some of the top spots for tourism are not in picturesque spots.

What does your logical fallacy have to do with my point? Because you named two tourist spots that were in nice settings, my four examples of other destinations not in nice spots are suddenly invalidated.

Please. The top travel destinations in the world are set on flat as a pancake nondescript land.

These destinations were created. If memory serves me right Paris is tops in the world and that city was planned the hell out of.

 

You are right - Houston can create a reason for tourists to visit.

 

The article though is purely comparing Houston and San Francisco.

 

I've long thought Galveston Bay needs to be developed better.  Yes, there are people who don't want to pay the insurance costs and live by the coast - but its by far the most interesting climate/topography type in the greater Houston area.

 

And I tend to agree with some others, once Downtown has more hotels there will be a bigger demand for conventions and that will in turn draw tourists (of a sort) who will make others here see the potential in profiting off of tourists.  Not a shabby trade off.

 

Side note: if gambling ever passes in Texas and Galveston is allowed casinos (which it will be) I would truly expect the island to boom into something like a modern day Atlantic City (though I would expect it to do better economically).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These destinations were created. If memory serves me right Paris is tops in the world and that city was planned the hell out of.

Modern Paris originates out of the Haussmann renovation which tore down medieval-era slums (extremely overcrowded, rampant diseases and crime) for wide, modern boulevards and the now-iconic Parisian buildings surrounding them, much like how planned freeways changed American cities and similarly took out areas, many of which were slums.

I've long thought Galveston Bay needs to be developed better. Yes, there are people who don't want to pay the insurance costs and live by the coast - but its by far the most interesting climate/topography type in the greater Houston area.

It's a shame that Galveston has pretty lousy beaches, which is a result of the tides of the Gulf of Mexico washing everything back up to Galveston instead of taking it out to sea. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, due to these tides, the atrocious crimes of Royce Zeigler and Kimberly Trenor would have been lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

well this was an interesting read before bed lol. I think of Houston as that really good indie film that nobody knows about, but through word of mouth it quickly becomes the film to watch.

 

Yes we might be a tad backwards, with way to much sprawl, and a list of problems, and a few leaders/residents that are stuck in the childish not going to do nothing ways, but the more I have spent time in and around Houston the more and more potential I see.

 

Also about that image thing. I remember when I was with some people in Germany and I was talking about where I was from. It wasn't the sprawl, smog, or Big Oil they thought of. The first words that came out of there mouth was "Houston we have a problem!" lol. Though the quote, not necessarily a great one, really made me think of Houston in a different way. For many people outside the US we are a city of can-do people, Space/NASA, and the future. It was like this with anyone I said where I was from.

 

We are also a very honest city. We don't really hide very much, and have no problem showing what we really care about....which is making lots and lots of money $$$.

 

While we can certainly make it a better and more beautiful place (which is most certainly happening now), lets not forget that Houston is an animal all in it's own and very different than any other city in our great state and country.

 

It will definitely be a roller-coaster ahead, but overall the city is going in the right direction...even if we are a tad impatient with it at times :P

 

*gets off soap box* 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Old thread, I know. But the article is highly spot on when it comes to the perception issues that Houston has. And this "missing media" gene plays a huge role in Houston's supposed lack of iconic landmarks: is it that the city truly is lacking in structures that could offer such integrity, or is it just a matter of the lack of exposure that ensured people never saw these landmarks?

 

And by exposure, it goes well beyond media coverage of various forms (i.e. poems, songs, TV series, books, etc) to include connection with the urban fabric (to allow people to easily explore it). I'd imagine that many visitors to Houston don't even know that the San Jacinto monument exists, simply by virtue of how unconnected the site is with the city.

Edited by AnTonY
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2014 at 6:21 AM, livincinco said:

I wasn't trying to imply that Houston was ugly and I don't think it is. It was to point out that SF has a huge advantage based on its natural setting. The natural environment of Houston does not provide it any advantage related to tourism, it is similar to any number of other Midwestern cities. However, SF has one of the most unique locations/settings in the world. There is nothing that city planning could have done or can do to change that.

 

On 4/27/2014 at 8:38 PM, livincinco said:

 

You've got to be joking.  My comment was that SF has a natural advantage in tourism because it has a very unique setting that most people find extremely beautiful.  Saying that's not a factor is about the same as denying that Miami draws a lot of its tourism from its natural surroundings (oh wait, you said that too).

 

I didn't say it was the only factor, I said it was an advantage.  By the way, I hear that Hawaii's tourist numbers are good because of "what they have done", not the stupid beaches and volcanos.

 

But those posters were correct in that city actions play a huge role in how the landscape factors as an attraction. Just imagine if SF focused itself away from all the interesting scenery, and, instead, built wide suburban sprawl, chopping down all trees in sight along the way? Or imagine if Chicago and Miami built themselves well inland from their respective waterfronts? Without such connections and cohesions, the landscape wouldn't be able to radiate into the city vibe as strongly, and the resulting tourist appeal would be less dynamic.

 

Houston's land may be flat like the Midwest, but that's where the similarities end. The Midwest does not have Houston's loblolly pines, live oaks, southern magnolias, etc. They cannot grow azaleas, camellias, bougainvillea, palms, etc that flourish in Houston. SF certainly has an attractive and world class location that aided tremendously in its tourist appeal. But I have zero doubt that Houston's landscape too can be advantageous to tourism. It just has to show and not tell.

Edited by AnTonY
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

There's a profile of HoustonFirst President & CEO Michel Heckman in this week's Houston Business Journal and I thought it was in step with much of the content of this thread. A fair amount of the piece discusses the progress that has been made in improving perceptions, but also reviews the work ahead as well as what's being done.

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2023/03/31/michael-heckman-houston-get-noticed.html

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...